Halo Effect and Recency Effect
As Director of Human Resources for People, people who need people.com, I have created the following training proposal which will include common problems that occur when managers complete performance reviews and suggestions for supervisors on how to eliminate or reduce these problems. The common problems I have identified when conducting my research for this training are as follows:
Ø The "halo effect" which as the name implies causes supervisors to only see the "angel" in an employee and blinds them by ignoring smaller problem areas that require growth and development. (San Joaquin County Human Resources Division, 2002)
Ø The "comparing employees effect" evaluates one employee to another employee without considering the different tasks they are required to perform. (Neely, G.)
Ø The "central tendency effect" is when supervisors rate their employees as meeting standards on each task they are being evaluated on. They don 't want to provide documentation when the employee is not performing to expectations. They don 't want to be the "bad guy" and choose to not "upset" the employee with negative feedback. (Neely, G.)
Ø The "pitchfork effect" is evaluating the employee on a recent event whether positive or negative, rather than evaluating them for the entire time of the evaluation. (San Joaquin County Human Resources Division, 2002)
Ø The "labeling effect" is a preconceived perception of the employee. (San Joaquin County Human Resources Division, 2002)
Ø The "mirroring effect" is when supervisors favor employees that remind them of themselves and have difficulty assessing and valuing the differences others bring to the workplace. (San Joaquin County Human Resources Division, 2002)
The following solutions are what I am proposing to eliminate or reduce these problems:
Ø On the "halo effect," produce continuous documentation over the duration of the evaluation, which will assist supervisors in writing the employee 's evaluation.
Ø On "comparing employees,"
Ø The "halo effect" which as the name implies causes supervisors to only see the "angel" in an employee and blinds them by ignoring smaller problem areas that require growth and development. (San Joaquin County Human Resources Division, 2002)
Ø The "comparing employees effect" evaluates one employee to another employee without considering the different tasks they are required to perform. (Neely, G.)
Ø The "central tendency effect" is when supervisors rate their employees as meeting standards on each task they are being evaluated on. They don 't want to provide documentation when the employee is not performing to expectations. They don 't want to be the "bad guy" and choose to not "upset" the employee with negative feedback. (Neely, G.)
Ø The "pitchfork effect" is evaluating the employee on a recent event whether positive or negative, rather than evaluating them for the entire time of the evaluation. (San Joaquin County Human Resources Division, 2002)
Ø The "labeling effect" is a preconceived perception of the employee. (San Joaquin County Human Resources Division, 2002)
Ø The "mirroring effect" is when supervisors favor employees that remind them of themselves and have difficulty assessing and valuing the differences others bring to the workplace. (San Joaquin County Human Resources Division, 2002)
The following solutions are what I am proposing to eliminate or reduce these problems:
Ø On the "halo effect," produce continuous documentation over the duration of the evaluation, which will assist supervisors in writing the employee 's evaluation.
Ø On "comparing employees,"
References: Turko, Donald. (2002). Employee Performance Guidelines [Online]. Retrieved June 8, 2005 from http://www.co.san-joaquin.ca.us/hr/docs/pdf/PERFORMANCE%20GUIDELINES.pdf Neely, Greg. Proper Performance Evaluations [Online]. Retrieved June 8, 2005 from http://www.neelyenterprise.com/properperfeval.htm